More stories

  • in

    What does Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death mean for the supreme court?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    A replacement for the liberal justice could reshape the court for a generation, marking Trump’s most lasting legacy

    Play Video

    3:20

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own words – video obituary

    The supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday evening. As messages of grief and gratitude for her life and career swept the country, here’s a look at what the liberal icon’s death means for the supreme court and what happens next.
    What does this mean for the court?
    Ginsburg’s death has set up nothing short of a historic war for the future of the court – and American life under the law. Donald Trump and Republicans in the Senate are determined to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice. Their doing so could decisively tilt the ideological balance of the court for a generation and would probably constitute the most lasting legacy of the Trump presidency.
    What’s at stake?
    Reproductive rights, voting rights, protections from discrimination, the future of criminal justice, the power of the presidency, the rights of immigrants, tax rules and laws, and healthcare for millions of vulnerable Americans, to name a few issues. Every big issue in American life is on the line.
    Why is so much at stake?
    Replacing Ginsburg with a young conservative justice would fundamentally shift the ideological balance of the court, creating a seemingly bulletproof conservative majority of five justices (excluding chief justice John Roberts, who would make six conservatives but who is seen by the far right as less reliable). This new majority could usher in a new legal landscape that could last at least 30 years.
    Didn’t Trump already appoint two justices?
    Yes, Trump appointed justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. But they replaced justices who were nominated by earlier Republican presidents. They have pulled the court right, but not as far right as replacing Ginsburg with a conservative would. Ginsburg was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1993.
    That sounds dramatic. Is it really such a big deal?
    Yes. An ideological tilt of this kind on the supreme court has not happened for 50 years. Since 1969, Republican presidents have appointed 14 out of 18 justices elevated to the court – but certain Republican appointments, such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter turned out to occupy moderate ground or even drift liberal on some issues. In the recent hyper-partisan age, that middle ground on the court has mostly disappeared.
    Can Trump and the Republicans pull this off?
    It’s not a sure thing. Any new appointment by Trump must be confirmed by straight majority vote in the Senate. Senate leader Mitch McConnell has said he would confirm a new justice before the election. But McConnell is working with a narrow 53-47 majority, and if Trump nominates a conservative with extreme views, confirmation might be more difficult.
    But yes, there is definitely the time and the will for Trump to pull this off. And the willingness of Republicans to violate every norm in the process should not be underestimated. The Republican senator Joni Ernst of Iowa said in July that a Trump pick could even be confirmed during a lame duck session of Congress, meaning after the 3 November election but before a new Senate is installed.
    Who will Trump pick?
    He’s released a list of potential picks, among them Amy Coney Barrett, 48, whom Trump appointed to the US court of appeals for the seventh circuit in 2017. Barrett worries progressives as a committed Roman Catholic with conservative views on social issues. At Barrett’s circuit court confirmation hearings, the Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein expressed concern that the judge would be guided by church law instead of the constitution.
    “The dogma lives loudly within you and that’s a concern,” Feinstein said, “when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
    Astonishingly, earlier this month the president augmented the list with the names of three sitting Republican senators among 20 additional names, including Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, who then tweeted “It’s time for Roe v Wade to go”, referring to the landmark 1973 court ruling that led to the legalization of abortion in the US.
    Could Trump fail to confirm a Ginsburg replacement?
    Trump sees appointing conservative judges as a political winner with his base, and a third supreme court justice in his first term could help him win re-election.
    But the hypocrisy in a move by McConnell to confirm a Trump pick with so little time before the election – after McConnell blocked the Barack Obama nominee Merrick Garland in March 2016 on the grounds that “only” eight months remained before that year’s election – could be politically costly.
    Because McConnell might be more worried about helping Republican senators win in close races, allowing McConnell to keep his leadership post, than helping Trump win a long-shot race, the political will to push a Trump nominee through might falter.
    The resistance to the confirmation would be extreme and the political fight would be all-consuming.
    Just hours before Ginsburg died, moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had remarked hypothetically, it was reported on Friday evening, that she would not confirm a new justice until after the presidential inauguration in January, 2021.

    Topics

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    US supreme court

    Law (US)

    Trump administration

    Donald Trump

    US politics

    explainers

    Share on Facebook

    Share on Twitter

    Share via Email

    Share on LinkedIn

    Share on Pinterest

    Share on WhatsApp

    Share on Messenger

    Reuse this content More

  • in

    Former model Amy Dorris accuses Donald Trump of sexual assault

    In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the former model Amy Dorris talked to Lucy Osborne about allegations that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her at the US Open tennis tournament more than two decades ago, in an alleged incident that left her feeling ‘sick’ and ‘violated’

    How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

    Guardian journalist Lucy Osborne talks to Anushka Asthana about her interview with Amy Dorris, a former model, who has come forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her at the US Open tennis tournament more than two decades ago, in an alleged incident that left her feeling “sick” and “violated”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Amy Dorris alleged that Trump accosted her outside the bathroom in his VIP box at the tournament in New York on 5 September 1997. Dorris, who was 24 at the time, accuses Trump of forcing his tongue down her throat, assaulting her all over her body and holding her in a grip she was unable to escape from. Lawyers for Trump have denied in the strongest possible terms that he ever harassed, abused or behaved improperly toward Doris. Lucy discusses how the alleged incident fits within a wider pattern of alleged abuse that Trump has been accused of by 25 other women. Lucy discusses the impact speaking out has had on these women and why Amy has decided to tell her story. “My girls are about to turn 13 years old, and I want them to know that you don’t let anybody do anything to you that you don’t want,” she has said. “And I’d rather be a role model. I want them to see that I didn’t stay quiet, that I stood up to somebody who did something that was unacceptable.” More

  • in

    Critics condemn Trump's rewrite of America's legacy of racism in DC speech

    Donald Trump on Thursday launched an extraordinary attack on American education at a history conference in Washington DC, downplaying America’s historic legacy of slavery and claiming children have been subjected to “decades of leftwing indoctrination”.Speaking at what was dubbed the White House Conference on American History, the president intensified efforts to appeal to his core base of white voters with a historically revisionist speech, while blasting efforts to address systemic racism as divisive.The president specifically attacked the New York Times’ 1619 Project, a Pulitzer Prize-winning endeavor that was published last year to cast a spotlight on the 400th anniversary of the first slave ship arriving in America.The 1619 Project “warped” the American story, Trump said. The president said the project claimed the US was “founded on the principle of oppression, not freedom”. Trump said children should know “they are citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world”.He also used the appearance to announce plans to establish a commission to promote patriotic education, dubbed the 1776 Commission, that would be tasked with encouraging educators to teach students “about the miracle of American history”.Critics were swift to condemn Trump’s new “patriotic education” plan and his attacks on the 1619 Project, something he said the teaching of which was akin to “child abuse”, with journalists quickly asserting his claims as blatantly false.Pres Trump said this of history to loud applause: “A radical movement is attempting to demolish this treasured and precious inheritance. We can’t let that happen.”Context: A movement is happening to look at America’s flaws and it’s original sins of slavery and stealing land.— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) September 17, 2020
    The president, who called curriculum on race “toxic propaganda, an ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds”, continued his administration’s efforts to restrict the telling of American history in schools to erase a legacy of racism, genocide and imperialism. The president recently threatened to cut funding to California schools that teach the 1619 Project. Trump has already cracked down on anti-racism training sessions in federal agencies.He also argued that America’s founding “set in motion the unstoppable chain of events that abolished slavery, secured civil rights, defeated communism and fascism and built the most fair, equal and prosperous nation in human history”. But he did not mention the 246 years of slavery in America, including the 89 years it was allowed to continue after the colonies declared independence from England. Nor did the president acknowledge the ongoing fight against racial injustice and police brutality, which has prompted months of protests this year.Responding to the president’s remarks, journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the writer behind the 1619 Project, made an observation on who isn’t included in Trump’s retelling of American history:The White House Conference on American History has not a single Black historian on it. Strange.— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 17, 2020
    Hannah-Jones also told the Associated Press that the first amendment to the Constitution abhors government attempts to censor speech and guarantees a free press.“The efforts by the president of the United States to use his powers to censor a work of American journalism by dictating what schools can and cannot teach and what American children should and should not learn should be deeply alarming to all Americans who value free speech,” she said.Meanwhile members of the Trump administration, including education secretary Betsy DeVos, remain silent on the backlash.I tried to ask @BetsyDeVosED why Trump was establishing his commission on patriotic education now just weeks from the election. After all, he’s had four years. Her press team shooed me away.— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) September 17, 2020 More

  • in

    Angry Tory MPs reject Joe Biden's comments on UK-EU Brexit talks

    Conservative MPs have reacted angrily to an intervention by Joe Biden, the US Democratic presidential candidate, in the UK Brexit talks, accusing him of ignorance of the Northern Ireland peace process.In a tweet on Wednesday, Biden warned the UK there would be no US-UK free trade agreement if the Brexit talks ended with the Good Friday agreement being undermined. He tweeted: “We can’t allow the Good Friday agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit.“Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. Period.”His intervention was welcomed by Richard Neal, the chairman of Congress’s ways and means committee.The backlash was led by the former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith, who told the Times: “We don’t need lectures on the Northern Ireland peace deal from Mr Biden. If I were him I would worry more about the need for a peace deal in the US to stop the killing and rioting before lecturing other sovereign nations.”Donald Trump has made law and order a key theme of his re-election campaign after months of unrest triggered by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May.David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, said: “Perhaps Mr Biden should talk to the EU since the only threat of an invisible border in Ireland would be if they insisted on levying tariffs.”Biden spoke out after the UK foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, met the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in Washington in a bid to reassure her that the British government was not seeking a hard border on the island of Ireland via measures in its internal market bill, a move that is seen by the US pro-Irish lobby as potentially fatal to the peace process.Q&AWhat is the UK internal market bill?ShowThe internal market bill aims to enforce compatible rules and regulations regarding trade in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.Some rules, for example around food safety or air quality,  which were formerly set by EU agreements, will now be controlled by the devolved administrations or Westminster. The internal market bill insists that devolved administrations  have to accept goods and services from all the nations of the UK – even if their standards differ locally.This, says the government, is in part to ensure international traders have access to the UK as a whole, confident that standards and rules are consistent.The Scottish government has criticised it as a Westminster “power grab”, and the Welsh government has expressed fears it will lead to a race to the bottom. If one of the countries that makes up the UK lowers their standards, over the importation of chlorinated chicken, for example, the other three nations will have to accept chlorinated chicken too.It has become even more controversial because one of its main aims is to empower ministers to pass regulations even if they are contrary to the withdrawal agreement reached with the EU under the Northern Ireland protocol.The text does not disguise its intention, stating that powers contained in the bill “have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent”.Martin Belam and Owen BowcottRaab has argued that the measures in the UK internal market bill are proportionate, precautionary and necessary due to the EU’s politicising of the stuttering talks on a trade deal between the UK and the EU.However, the EU hit back on Thursday, saying an agreement on a trade and security deal remained conditional on the government pulling the contentious clauses in the internal market bill.The European commission’s vice-president for the economy, Valdis Dombrovskis, said: “If the UK does not comply with the exit agreement, there will no longer be a basis for a free trade agreement between the EU and the UK. The UK government must correct this before we continue to negotiate our political and economic relations.”The dispute between Biden and Downing Street poses a broader threat to UK interests if Biden, a pro-EU and pro-Ireland politician, decides to turn against Boris Johnson, who has made a virtue of his close relations with the Trump administration.The former UK trade minister Conor Burns tweeted: “Hey JoeBiden would you like to discuss the Good Friday agreement? It is also called the Belfast agreement so it doesn’t offend both traditions. Did you actually know that? I was born in NI and I’m a Catholic and a Unionist. Here if you need help.”The Conservative MP for Beaconsfield, Joy Morrissey, replied that “Biden is shamelessly pandering to the American Irish vote while refusing to engage with the UK government or UK diplomatic channels. Nice.”She later deleted her tweet, but added: “Clearly it’s all about the Irish American vote.”Burns added: “The error those of us who supported Brexit was to assume the EU would behave rationally in seeking a free trade agreement with a large trading partner like the UK..”Alexander Stafford, the Conservative MP for Rother Valley, tweeted: “Is this the same JoeBiden who once described Britain’s position in Northern Ireland as ‘absolutely outrageous’. And who hit the headlines in the 1980s for his stand against the deportation of IRA suspects from the US to Britain?”John Redwood, a leading Brexiter, said: “Trade deals are nice to have but not essential. We did not have a trade deal with the US when we were in the EU. Getting back full control of our laws, our money and our borders is essential.”Theresa May’s former chief of staff Nick Timothy rejected the frenzy, dismissing “the sudden discovery that Democrats don’t like Brexit and prefer the Irish”.Other Tory MPs including Stewart Jackson tweeted articles claiming that two of the representatives criticising the UK over the Good Friday agreement were overt IRA sympathisers, and a third was a supporter of Martin McGuinness, the now deceased former deputy first minister for Northern Ireland.The shadow foreign secretary, Lisa Nandy, said: “This shows the scale of the damage the government have done to Britain’s standing in the world. They’ve lost trust and undermined cooperation at the moment we most need it – and all to tear up an agreement they negotiated. Reckless, incompetent and utterly self-defeating.”Daniel Mulhall, the Irish ambassador to the US, has been working the corridors in Washington for the past fortnight, lobbying to lessen the threat the Irish perceive to the Good Friday agreement posed by the British proposals. He has been tweeting his gratitude to those representatives issuing support for the Good Friday agreement.No free trade deal between the UK and the US can be agreed unless it is supported by two-thirds of Congress.In a sign of Trump administration concern about the row, Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s former acting chief of staff, will shortly make his first trip to the the UK in his new role as the US special envoy for Northern Ireland.The Foreign Office, criticised by some for failing to anticipate the likely US backlash, will argue Raab’s visit to Washington may have drawn a predictable reaction from some corners, but was necessary to reassure and counter Irish propaganda.But UK diplomats will be anxious that the UK is not seen to adopt a partisan stance in the US elections, especially since Biden currently holds a fragile poll lead. More

  • in

    'It felt like tentacles': the women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct

    ‘It felt like tentacles’: the women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct

    Donald Trump in New York City in 1997.
    Photograph: Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images

    Allegations against president span decades, with Amy Dorris at least the 26th woman to come forward
    Full report: Donald Trump accused of sexual assault by former model
    Support the Guardian’s investigative journalism – make a contribution
    by Lucy Osborne

    Main image:
    Donald Trump in New York City in 1997.
    Photograph: Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images

    The list of women who have publicly made sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump outnumbers the list of officials in his cabinet. Before today, no fewer than 25 women had made such accusations against Trump, ranging from harassment to sexual assault and rape.
    The allegations span four decades. Trump has denied every charge, dismissing his accusers as liars and publicity seekers, claiming never to have met some of them and, in at least two cases, suggesting they were not attractive enough for him.
    Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential race suggests a sizeable portion of the American electorate either believed his claims of innocence or were unswayed by the allegations.
    Today Amy Dorris becomes at least the 26th woman to publicly accuse Trump of sexual misconduct – with more than a dozen of that group having accused him of sexual assault. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, she has alleged that Trump accosted her outside the bathroom of his VIP box at the US Open tennis tournament in New York in 1997.

    Play Video

    7:53

    ‘I feel sick, violated’: former model alleges sexual assault by Donald Trump – video
    She accused Trump of forcing his tongue down her throat, touching her all over her body and holding her in a grip from which she could not escape, while ignoring her pleas to stop. “His hands were very gropey and all over my butt, my breasts, my back, everything,” she said, recalling how she used her teeth to try to force his tongue out of her mouth. “I felt trapped.”
    Via his lawyers, Trump denied in the strongest possible terms having ever harassed, abused or behaved improperly toward Dorris.
    Some women making #MeToo sexual misconduct allegations have been forced to rely solely only on their own memories of events. But Dorris immediately shared her account of the alleged incident with two people and has recounted it to several others since. All said Dorris had shared with them details of the alleged incident that matched what she told the Guardian. More